Creddille v. MTA NYC Transit Authority et al

Filing 56

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, As described, Pltff's motion is based only on judicial rulings. Moreover, Pltff has not explained why the court's order consolidating the three actions for discovery purposes was in any way prejudicial to him nor has h e produced a single scintilla of evidence to demonstrate favortism or antagonism that would render a fair judgment almost impossible. Given that Pltff's objections amount to nothing more than dissatisfaction with the Court's order, recusal is unwarranted. Accordingly, Pltff's 53 Motion for Recusal is DENIED. (Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 2/6/2013) c/m (Galeano, Sonia)

__...

·~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------X
GARY CREDDILLE,
Plaintiff,

-againstTHE MTA NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT
AUTHORITY & CORE ENVIRONMENTAL
CORP.,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
11-cv-5442 (SLT) (RLM)
11-cv-5443 (SLT) (RLM)
11-cv-5444 (SLT) (RLM)

Defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------X
TOWNES, United States District Judge:

Gary Creddille ("Plaintiff''), prose, commenced three separate actions against the MTA
New York City Transit Authority (the "MTA") and Core Environmental Corp. (together

"Defendants"), alleging that Defendants harassed him and discriminated against him as well as
retaliated against him. The MTA moved for a hearing to discuss consolidating the three
complaints in light of the fact that all of the complaints contained the same set of facts and

attachments. On December 30, 2011, this court denied the MTA's request for a hearing, but
consolidated the cases for purposes of discovery and settlement. (Document No. 5.) The court
noted that if Plaintiff refused to consent for consolidation of the three actions for aU purposes,
Defendants may move for consolidation for trial after the close of discovery. (ld.)
Plaintiff has now moved for the undersigned's recusal in this case, asserting that my
order permitting consolidation for purposes of discovery and settlement is "a bias, unfair, and
prejudice decision, because [Plaintiff] never even met with Judge Sandra L. Townes before and
she is going to satisfy the MTA defendant attorney ... without my consent to make him happy."
(Plaintiff's Recusal Motion, Attachment at 1.) For reasons that are unclear to the court, Plaintiff
also appears to take issue with the fact that in the event the parties cannot reach a settlement
agreement, requests for a premotion conference are due by February 6, 2013. For the reasons
set forth below, the motion is denied.
uA judge 'shall disqualify [herself] in any proceeding in which [her] impartiality might

reasonably be questioned."' U.S. v. Youse!, 327 F.3d 56, 69 (2d. Cir. 2003) (quoting 28 U.S. C.

§ 455(a)). Recusal is appropriate when "the judge has a 'personal bias or prejudice concerning
a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.'" /d.
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1)). The judge must recuse herself if circumstances exist which
constitute an objectively reasonable basis upon which to question the judge's impartiality, i.e., if
circumstances show "a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment
almost impossible.n Uteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). u[J)udicial rulings alone
almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion" and "can only in the rarest
circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism required." /d.
As described, Plaintiff's motion is based only on judicial rulings. Moreover, Plaintiff has
not explained why the court's order consolidating the three actions for discovery purposes was in
any way prejudicial to him nor has he produced a single scintilla of evidence to demonstrate
favortism or antagonism that would render a fair judgment almost impossible. Given that
Plaintiffs objections amount to nothing more than dissatisfaction with the court's order, recusal
is unwarranted. Hammer v. Amazon. com, 392 F. Supp. 2d 423, 428 (E.D.N.Y. 2005).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.

·---------

SO ORDERED.

SANDRA L. TOWNES
United States District Judge
Dated:

~~(,,

2013

Brooklyn, NeJJvork

2